6 ms·

"An engine this big generates a LOT of drag at Mach 2.2" If this is the case write a Medium article about how BoomSuperonic is able to make turbofans go to Mac

"An engine this big generates a LOT of drag at Mach 2.2" If this is the case write a Medium article about how BoomSuperonic is able to make turbofans go to Mach 2.2

pdelbarba 9y ago
Turbofans have no problem going mach 2.2 [1]. They're not super efficient at that speed but they're better than anything else we have. What I don't understand is the engine size rule. I'm not aware of any regulation on the size of an engine air inlet.... [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Specific-impulse-kk-20090105.png/700px-Specific-impulse-kk-20090105.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Sp...
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  TL;DR This is legislation Boom wants enacted to allow for more relaxed noise emission levels. "Current engine noise rules for new supersonic aircraft are more stringent than those for the existing subsonic fleet. By setting our engine noise to the same levels as existing subsonic airplanes, we could make our engines produce so much less drag that we would save 20–40 percent on fuel, depending on whether you use this year’s or next year’s rules as a baseline." Curious if they've hit a wall in their aerodynamic design and need this to move forward.
  - idlewords 9y ago
    They want the regulations banning overland supersonic flight removed, and are trying to frame it as a fuel efficiency issue rather than the "we will make people's lives miserable with noise" issue that led to the ban.
    - pdelbarba 9y ago
      It can be done sanely, but they don't have anything flying yet (was supposed to be May 2017 but that came and went). Also, don't be fooled. The smaller test aircraft, if it ever flies, will have a much lower sonic boom than the larger airliner. Sonic boom is largely proportional to aircraft weight.
      - Avshalom 9y ago
        Reading between the lines it would appear that they are so far from having anything that flies that they're still willing to redesign their engine and presumably plane as a result. (And yet they have the hubris to talk about how much a ticket will cost)
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > They want the regulations banning overland supersonic flight removed True, but > and are trying to frame it as a fuel efficiency issue No, they are trying to frame the changes they want to engine noise regs as a fuel efficiency issue; that's a separate rule change from (in the same legislation as) the one removing the overland supersonic flight ban.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > What I don't understand is the engine size rule. It's not a size rule, it's an engine noise rule which ends up (per the article, I don't know enough about the relevant fields to confirm this) requiring wider engines which end up producing more drag.

"An engine this big generates a LOT of drag at Mach 2.2" If this is the case write a Medium article about how BoomSuperonic is able to make turbofans go to Mach 2.2

pdelbarba 9y ago

Turbofans have no problem going mach 2.2 [1]. They're not super efficient at that speed but they're better than anything else we have. What I don't understand is the engine size rule. I'm not aware of any regulation on the size of an engine air inlet.... [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Specific-impulse-kk-20090105.png/700px-Specific-impulse-kk-20090105.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Sp...

toomuchtodo 9y ago
TL;DR This is legislation Boom wants enacted to allow for more relaxed noise emission levels. "Current engine noise rules for new supersonic aircraft are more stringent than those for the existing subsonic fleet. By setting our engine noise to the same levels as existing subsonic airplanes, we could make our engines produce so much less drag that we would save 20–40 percent on fuel, depending on whether you use this year’s or next year’s rules as a baseline." Curious if they've hit a wall in their aerodynamic design and need this to move forward.
- idlewords 9y ago
  They want the regulations banning overland supersonic flight removed, and are trying to frame it as a fuel efficiency issue rather than the "we will make people's lives miserable with noise" issue that led to the ban.
  - pdelbarba 9y ago
    It can be done sanely, but they don't have anything flying yet (was supposed to be May 2017 but that came and went). Also, don't be fooled. The smaller test aircraft, if it ever flies, will have a much lower sonic boom than the larger airliner. Sonic boom is largely proportional to aircraft weight.
    - Avshalom 9y ago
      Reading between the lines it would appear that they are so far from having anything that flies that they're still willing to redesign their engine and presumably plane as a result. (And yet they have the hubris to talk about how much a ticket will cost)
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > They want the regulations banning overland supersonic flight removed True, but > and are trying to frame it as a fuel efficiency issue No, they are trying to frame the changes they want to engine noise regs as a fuel efficiency issue; that's a separate rule change from (in the same legislation as) the one removing the overland supersonic flight ban.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> What I don't understand is the engine size rule. It's not a size rule, it's an engine noise rule which ends up (per the article, I don't know enough about the relevant fields to confirm this) requiring wider engines which end up producing more drag.